House of Lords: Sittings in Session 2001–02

Lord Marlesford: asked the Chairman of Committees:
	For how many hours the House sat in total in Session 2001–02; and for how many of these hours the House was in Committee.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: During Session 2001–02 the House sat for a total of 1,395 hours 21 minutes (excluding swearing-in days). The House spent 301 hours 15 minutes on committee stages of bills. On 24 July 2002 the House spent six hours 21 minutes in Committee considering the fifth report from the Procedure Committee.

Westminster Hall: Roof Restoration

Lord Jopling: asked the Chairman of Committees:
	When the last major restoration of Westminster Hall roof took place; how much it cost; who was the architect in charge; and who were the main contractors.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: Between 1914 and 1923 Sir Frank Baines of the Office of Works undertook a major restoration of the roof, which included structural reinforcement of the roof timbers with a steel frame, and the rebuilding of the lantern. Between 1949 and 1952 further repairs were made to the lantern and roof of the Hall, at a cost of £34,000. The architect was J A Wright of the Ministry of Works, and the contractors were Matthew Hall & Co. Ltd. In 1991 a full structural survey of the Hall was carried out by Alan Baxter and Associates. JaniceRebo

Northern Ireland Office: Questions for Written Answer

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Privy Seal on 15 January (WA 49–50) concerning Parliamentary Questions answered by the Northern Ireland Office, what steps have been taken to improve the prompt and accurate answering of questions; and whether they are satisfied with progress in this regard.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The Northern Ireland Office endeavours to answer all Parliamentary Questions within the 14-day time-scale. However, because of the large numbers of Parliamentary Questions in recent months, many of which have required co-ordination between several parts of the Northern Ireland Office and the formerly devolved administration, the 14-day time-scale has occasionally not been met.
	The Head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service has discussed this matter with all of the Northern Ireland Permanent Secretaries. The Northern Ireland departments for which the NIO is responsible for during direct rule are well aware of the importance of answering Written Questions on time.
	Within the Northern Ireland Office steps taken to improve the response time to Written Questions include the Parliamentary Section employing an additional member of staff to assist in the work relating to Parliamentary Questions. They have also introduced a computerised Question tracking system to enable earlier warning of overdue questions and provide statistics on question turnaround times.
	The NIO will review response times to Questions once these changes have had time to have an effect.

North/South Implementation Bodies

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Privy Seal on 3 June (WA 138) concerning implementation bodies, whether the exchange of notes with the Government of Republic of Ireland (Treaty Series No 54 (2002) on 19 November 2002) allows changes of policy by the implementation bodies such as caused by a reduction of its budget.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: I refer the noble Lord to the Answer given on 3 June 2003 (WA 138). JaniceRebo

North/South Implementation Bodies

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Privy Seal on 3 June (WA 139) concerning proportionality of funding for 2003 agreed by Finance Ministers North and South and approved by the British and Irish Governments dated 19 November 2002, whether the procedure followed was that set out on 5 December 2002 and entitled Ministerial Decision-Making Interim Procedures; and whether it was consistent with the letter from the Northern Ireland Secretary of State to David Trimble MP of 19 December 2002 and with an Answer to the Lord Privy Seal on 14 January (WA 28); and, if so, on what date was the working party meeting and the consultations on the cross-community basis and with the Ulster-Scots Agency.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: I refer the noble Lord to the Answer given on 16 June (WA 77).
	As the noble Lord is aware, work is underway to increase the budget of the North/South Language Body. This work will be carried out in accordance with the agreed consultation arrangements.

North/South Ministerial Council

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Privy Seal on 3 June (WA 138) concerning arrangements to replace the North/South Ministerial Council meetings, whether there was consultation with Northern Ireland political parties on the content of exchange of notes between the British and Irish Governments on 19 December 2002; and, if not, why not.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The exchange of notes referred to in the previous Answer took place on 19 November 2002 not 19 December 2002. There was no consultation with the Northern Ireland political parties on the content of the exchange of notes which is a matter for the two governments.

North/South Ministerial Council

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Privy Seal on 14 January (WA 28) concerning the North/South Ministerial Council, whether they can demonstrate that all decisions of the council since 15 October 2002 have been consistent with the assurance in the answer.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: I can assure the noble Lord that the decision-making process has been consistent with the previous assurances. JaniceRebo

North/South Ministerial Council

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What steps they have taken in consultation with the advisers to the right honourable David Trimble MP and to Mr Mark Durkan, to ensure that decision making by the North/South Ministerial Council is transparent, as promised in a letter from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to Mr Trimble of 19 December 2002.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: A list of decisions taken up to 28 March 2003 under the exchange of notes between the British and Irish Governments on 19 November 2002 was placed in the Library on 7 April. Papers relating to all decisions taken up to 30 April 2003 have been placed in the Library.

Action Mental Health

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they made a contribution to the salary of the chief executive of Action Mental Health in Northern Ireland; and, if so, what proportion of the total salary their contribution represents.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The chief executive of Action Mental Health in Northern Ireland is a senior civil servant seconded from the Department for Employment and Learning. Action Mental Health reimburses the department with the notional salary for the post, which was equivalent to approximately 60 per cent of the secondee's salary during the 2002–03 financial year.

Prison Population

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What are their plans for reducing the size of the prison population in England and Wales

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: It is for the courts to decide in individual cases whether a prison sentence is appropriate. Where imprisonment is the most appropriate punishment, it should be applied and we should, and are, developing our capacity to meet demand.
	The Criminal Justice Bill will provide sentencers with a more flexible range of sentences to deal with offenders as effectively as possible. The introduction of two intermediate sanctions—"custody minus" and "intermittent custody", allowing offenders to retain employment and family contact during the week while being held in custody at weekends—will provide options short of full-time custody. The introduction of a generic community sentence to replace the current series of standardised orders will also provide sentencers with the flexibility to impose a package of requirements at any level of seriousness.
	We are also introducing tough new community sentences such as the intensive control and change programme (ICCP) which is designed to cut offending by 18 to 20 year-olds. ICCP, which was launched as a pilot in April, will keep offenders off the streets, tackle their offending behaviour, aid rehabilitation and provide an effective alternative to prison for non-violent and non-sexual offenders.
	We are also extending home detention curfew (HDC) to four and a half months. The HDC scheme is proving successful. There are currently more than 3,000 prisoners on HDC each week and 90 per cent of the 70,000-plus prisoners released on HDC since the scheme began in January 1999 have completed their curfew period without any problems at all.

Prison Population

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What are their plans to meet any gap between the capacity of Her Majesty's prisons to detain inmates in humane and acceptable conditions and any rise in the prison population in excess of that capacity.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The Government continue to keep under review the demand on prison places and the capacity of the Prison Service to accommodate, in humane conditions, those prisoners sent to it by the courts.
	We are committing significant funding to increasing the capacity of the prison estate. Funding from the May 2002 budget provided for 2,320 places to be delivered over the following 12 months. We have already announced that an additional £60 million has been made available to provide 740 places by March 2004, together with funding for 450 places at Birmingham Prison, which are currently scheduled to open by April 2004. A further £138 million from the capital modernisation fund was announced in the 2003 Budget, and will be used to provide around 1,000 places over the period 2004–06.
	The useable operational capacity of the Prison Service estate was 55,300 in April 1996 compared to the 74,300 in June this year, an increase of 19,000. With the building programmes in progress, the useable capacity will continue to increase, providing a total useable capacity for the Prison Service estate of around 78,700 places by 2006, some 23,400 places more than in 1996.

International Criminal Court: Exemptions

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether it is their policy as a member of the United Nations Security Council that the exemption for United Kingdom peacekeepers from prosecution by the International Criminal Court should be renewed; and, if so, what are their reasons.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: UK peacekeepers are not exempt from the jurisdiction of the ICC since the UK is a state party to the ICC Statute. Security Council Resolution 1422 allowed a 12-months exemption from ICC investigation only for UN peacekeepers who are citizens of states which are not states parties to the ICC Statute. Resolution 1422 was renewed on 12 June 2003 for a period of 12 months as Resolution 1487. Joan

Russia: Religious Discrimination

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether their conversations arising from the visit of President Putin to Great Britain will include issues of discrimination in Russia against Churches and faiths other than Russian Orthodox, particularly the refusal or non-renewal of visas for clergy who are citizens of member states of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Human rights issues, including Chechnya, will be raised during President Putin's visit. But there will also be a wide range of international issues to discuss. I cannot therefore offer firm assurances in advance as to the detail of the human rights questions that time and opportunity will allow for discussion.

Sudan: Attacks Against Civilians

Baroness Cox: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their response to the report of recent attacks against civilians by Government of Sudan-backed forces in 10 villages in Longochok Eastern Upper Nile; and what are the implications of these attacks for the peace talks.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The US-led civilian protection monitoring team is investigating reports of a recent attack against civilians in Longochok in Eastern Upper Nile. Their report is expected in the next few days.
	We are, of course, concerned about breaches of the March 2002 agreement to refrain from attacks against civilians and the October 2002 memorandum of understanding on cessation of hostilities. We and other donors will continue to monitor both agreements very closely and to encourage both parties to implement them in full.
	We do not expect this incident to derail the peace process.

Congo

Lord Judd: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What are the lines of political and operational responsibility of the European Union military force in the Democratic Republic of the Congo to the United Nations Secretary General and the Security Council.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The operation in Bunia will be undertaken by the EU in close co-operation with the UN. The Secretary-General/High Representative assisted by the EU Special Representative for the Great Lakes will, in close co-ordination with the European Presidency act as a primary point of contact with the UN.
	The IEMF force commander will maintain contact with the UN mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC) and other international and regional actors in theatre.
	The EU's Political and Security Committee (PSC) will exercise the political control and strategic direction of the operation under the responsibility of the Council. The PSC has been authorised by the Council to take the relevant decisions in accordance with Article 25 of the Treaty on European Union. This authorisation includes powers to amend the OPLAN, the chain of command and the rules of engagement. The powers of decision with respect to the objectives and the termination of the operation will however remain vested in the European Council, assisted by the Secretary-General/High Representative.
	The EU's Military Committee (EUMC) will monitor the proper execution of the military operation conducted under the responsibility of the operation commander.
	France will act as the framework nation for the operation and provide the operational headquarters (OHQ). The OHQ is located in Paris and will include officers from several participating countries as well as officials from the general secretariat of the Council.
	The force headquarters is located in Entebbe (Uganda) with an advanced position in Bunia. Major General Bruno Neveux (France) has been appointed the EU operation commander and Jean-Paul Thonier appointed as the EU force commander. Joan

Convention on the Future of Europe

Viscount Goschen: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they continue to maintain that the draft European Constitution represents a "tidying-up exercise" of existing measures.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: One of the chief aims of the Future of Europe Convention has been to modernise the EU Treaties, reforming where necessary to ensure that the EU can continue to function effectively and deliver results for its citizens in a more democratic and accountable manner, following the 2004 round of enlargement. Work is still in progress. However, the Convention Secretariat advise that around 75 per cent of the draft articles produced by the Convention reflect existing language in the EU Treaties, updated with minor changes.

Guantanamo Bay

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When the British captives held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, were last visited by:
	(a) British representatives; and
	(b) the International Committee of the Red Cross; and
	whether they consider that the British captives are allowed sufficient time and space for exercise.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: British officials last visited Guantanamo Bay from 21 to 28 April and saw each of the British detainees during that period. The International Committee of the Red Cross has access to the detainees on request. The British detainees have twice-weekly exercise periods outside and are also allowed to exercise in their cells and communal areas. We do not consider this to be sufficient and have raised this issue with the US authorities.

Guantanamo Bay

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many British citizens, or former residents, are still held captive at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; whether any have been released or have received release or trial dates; what information they have received from the United States Government about the reasons for releasing 41 captives since January 2002; and, if none, whether they will ask for the reasons.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: There are nine British nationals currently detained at Guantanamo Bay. We do not have any standing as regards those who are not British nationals, even if they were once resident in the UK.
	The United States authorities have not yet made a decision to charge or release any of the British detainees. We are pressing the United States authorities to come to a conclusion on the detainees' future.
	None of those who have already been released from Guantanamo Bay were British nationals. The US Government have said that the detainees were released because they did not pose a threat to US security. John B

Rape and Sexual Assault: British Citizens Travelling Overseas

Lord Acton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What guidance they provide for British citizens travelling overseas on rape and sexual assault while abroad.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: While most visits abroad are trouble-free, the FCO is becoming increasingly aware of people being raped while they are overseas. In 2002, 129 cases of rape or sexual assaults were reported to British consular staff overseas. It is likely that many cases go unreported.
	Rape and sexual assault can, and does, happen to people from all walks of life—women, men, young and old. It is a very traumatic experience in any circumstance. That trauma can often be made even more difficult to deal with when the rape happens abroad.
	The FCO is committed to helping victims. We want them to come forward and seek assistance from the nearest British Consulate. Equally, we want to give advice to travellers before they go to help ensure their personal safety. The new FCO information leaflet on Rape and Sexual Assault Overseas was written in conjunction with NGOs and the police and aims to provide advice on personal safety for travellers, information for victims of rape and sexual assault and their families and useful contact information.
	The launch of the information leaflet forms part of the "Know Before You Go" campaign which, working with travel industry partners, encourages travellers to be better prepared before travelling overseas. The FCO website www.fco.gov.uk/knowbeforeyougo provides top tips for travel overseas including guidance on taking out travel insurance, country-specific travel advice information and checklists for specific groups such as backpackers and independent travellers, women travellers; those visiting friends and relatives overseas; and gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender travellers.
	I hope colleagues will join in disseminating the key messages of the campaign.

Armenia: Arms Embargo

Lord Graham of Edmonton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether any goods subject to the OSCE arms embargo have recently been approved for export to Armenia.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Her Majesty's Government remain committed to the OSCE arms embargo against both Azerbaijan and Armenia, which we interpret as covering all goods and technology controlled under entries in Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 (commonly known as the military list).
	In June 2003, the Government approved an export licence application for demining equipment for the HALO Trust for demining operations in Armenia.
	The decision was made in accordance with our practice occasionally to make an exemption to our interpretation of the embargo by approving exports of non-lethal military goods to humanitarian, media or peacekeeping organisations where it is clear that the embargo was not intended to prevent those exports and there is a strong humanitarian case for them. Joan

Montserrat: Medical Care

Lord Morris of Manchester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When the scheme for specialist medical care for patients with life-threatening conditions in the United Kingdom Overseas Territory of Montserrat, for whom appropriate care is not available on the island, was last reviewed; and what account was taken of the impact of the volcanic crisis in eroding the island's medical services.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Since 1 April 1989, the UK/Montserrat healthcare agreement has allowed Montserrat to refer up to four patients needing hospital care, for which adequate facilities do not exist in Montserrat, to the UK each year. The agreement itself has not been formally reviewed since 1989, although administrative arrangements for referrals were revisited earlier this year.
	Substantial efforts have been made to restore, rebuild and maintain public health services and facilities on Montserrat since the volcanic crisis. This has included over £5 million in funding from the Department for International Development for the construction and equipping of a hospital, rehabilitation of primary care clinics, a new operating theatre and the training of health personnel. Effective basic public health services have continued on the island since the crisis supported by Her Majesty's Government's budgetary aid to the Government of Montserrat.

Montserrat: Medical Care

Lord Morris of Manchester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many patients with life-threatening conditions in the United Kingdom Overseas Territory of Montserrat, for whom appropriate medical care is not available on the island, are currently awaiting help under the scheme for specialist medical care outside the territory; and whether timely referrals will be achieved in each case.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The UK/Montserrat healthcare agreement allows Montserrat to send up to four patients needing hospital care for which adequate facilities do not exist in Montserrat to the UK each year. It is not a prerequisite for the acceptance of a referral that the condition requiring treatment is life-threatening, though most referrals do involve serious conditions. In the current referral year (April 2003 to April 2004) the UK has so far accepted one patient for treatment under the quota arrangements. A proposed second patient is awaiting placement for a hip replacement operation. The average waiting time in the UK for such an operation is currently 9 to 12 months and patients referred under reciprocal agreements are treated with the same priority according to their clinical need as patients resident in the UK.

Montserrat: CARICOM and OECS

Lord Morris of Manchester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their position on the membership of Montserrat and other British Overseas Territories of the CARICOM and OECS regional organisations.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The British Government encourage Montserrat and the other British Overseas Territories to obtain maximum benefits from regional integration, including, where appropriate, through their membership of CARICOM and the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS). The British Overseas Territories require prior British Government approval, in the form of an entrustment, before undertaking international commitments. Janice

Montserrat: Repayment of Loans

Lord Morris of Manchester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they would consider a request by the Government of Montserrat for help with the repayment of loans owed by the Montserrat Development Bank for port expansion, mortgages and student loans.

Baroness Amos: DfID already has assisted Montserrat with the handling of government loans, and continues to do so. Since the onset of the volcanic crisis, the island government have encountered difficulty in servicing outstanding debt. We assisted initially in support of their case, which secured Caribbean Development Bank agreement to a moratorium on repayments. Since December 2001, when the moratorium ended, we have contributed to the partial write-off of a loan for port expansion and helped with full repayment of some other debts. The Caribbean Development Bank has since confirmed Montserrat's renewed eligibility for some concessional finance and has restructured some 7.2 million United States dollars of remaining debt. This includes lines of credit, managed by the Bank of Montserrat on behalf of the Government of Montserrat, some of which has been on-lent for mortgage purposes.

Montserrat: Pensions Payments

Lord Morris of Manchester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many people entitled to retirement pensions from the Pensions and Overseas Benefit Directorate of the Department for Work and Pensions reside in the United Kingdom Overseas Territory of Montserrat; what arrangements are in place for their payment and whether timely payment of these pensions has been made and is being made.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: To date, there are 152 people residing in Montserrat who are entitled to retirement pension (RP) from the International Pension Centre of the Department for Work and Pensions. One hundred and thirty two of these people receive their RP by order payable; 16 have their RP paid into a UK bank account; and 4 have their RP paid into a bank account in a country other than the UK. Montserrat does not have the available infrastructure to make payments directly to a bank account.
	To our knowledge, payments to all of the above customers are, and always have been, issued on time. Postal delays were reported over the Christmas (2002) period due to the additional mail that the postal authorities deal with at that time of year. There were also postal delays in January/February 2003 due to some problems with the contractor responsible for delivering. This created a backlog of post that took until the end of February to clear, so temporary measures were put in place until the problems were rectified.

Montserrat: Pensions Payments

Lord Morris of Manchester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What consultation the Department for Work and Pensions has had with agencies in Montserrat regarding complaints of late payment of pensions to people residing in Montserrat.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: International Pension Centre (IPC) were advised in May and June 2003 of delays in payment to people in Montserrat by Denise Baker, PA/Governor, Montserrat. IPC explained to Denise that normally, to the best of our knowledge, payments to our customers in Montserrat are made on time. Postal delays were reported over the Christmas (2002) period due to the additional mail that the postal authorities deal with at that time of year. There were also postal delays in January/February 2003 due to some problems with the contractor responsible for delivering. This created a backlog of post that took until the end of February to clear, so temporary measures were put in place until the problems were rectified. She was advised that we had appointed a new contractor with effect from May 2003 to deliver our post abroad and that we expected this to greatly improve our service. Janice

Montserrat: Pensions Payments

Lord Morris of Manchester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the Department for Work and Pensions has taken or is now considering any action to avoid late payment of pension entitlements to people residing in Montserrat.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The only method of payment available for the issue of retirement pension (RP) to people living in Montserrat is by order payable through the postal system. Direct payment into a bank account is only available if the person has a bank account in the UK or in a country which has the infrastructure to accept payments direct to a bank account, Montserrat does not at present have that infrastructure. To date, we have had confirmation that our new courier service is meeting the delivery target of eight working days to destinations outside of Europe. The post to Montserrat is flown direct from the courier to the postal service in Montserrat. This ensures that any postal delays in other countries are not contributing factors to any delays in Montserrat. There are currently no reported delays in Montserrat.
	Although no problems are anticipated, should people in Montserrat suffer any delays in receiving their RP in the future, arrangements can be made to track the payment from when it was issued up to when it is eventually received. This will enable us to confirm where any delay in the delivery process occurs and take any appropriate measures necessary.

Benefit Sanctions

Earl Russell: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What evidence they have on whether the imposition of benefit sanctions has had any adverse effect on the ability to meet the costs of actively seeking work; and
	Whether those who have been subjected to previous benefits sanctions have been more or less successful in finding employment than those on means-tested benefits as a whole.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Research that we have conducted into the effects of the imposition of sanctions found that overall sanctions do not have a detrimental effect on jobsearch activity. Although success in obtaining work was not covered by the research, it was found that in many cases receiving a sanction resulted in increased effort in actively seeking work.
	A copy of the report Saunders, T, Stone, V & Candy S (2001): The Impact of the 26 week Sanctioning Regime. Employment Service Report ESR 100 which deals with the effects of the sanctioning regime has been placed in the Library.

Ministry of Defence: Questions for Written Answer

Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Why they have not yet answered Questions for Written Answer HL2807, HL2808, HL2809 and HL2810, tabled on 9 May; and when they expect to be able to do so.

Lord Bach: I have replied to the noble Lord today. I regret the delay in replying, which was due to continuing operational commitments. Rebo

Iraq: United States Internment Facilities

Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Where the United States internment facility or facilities in Iraq are situated; and how many prisoners are detained in each.

Lord Bach: The locations of the United States internment facilities and the number of prisoners detained there are matters for the United States.

Iraq: Prisoners Captured by British Forces

Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many prisoners in total have been captured by British forces in Iraq and transferred to a United States internment facility; and, of that total, how many have been citizens of:
	(a) Iraq
	(b) the United Kingdom
	(c) the United States
	(d) other countries.

Lord Bach: The United Kingdom has transferred all of its prisoners of war to United States internment facilities. As of 26 June 2003, the number of prisoners who had been captured was some 4,000. None was a citizen of the UK or US; 28 were nationals from countries other than Iraq.

Iraq: Prisoners Captured by British Forces

Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether all prisoners captured by British forces in Iraq are, in their view, prisoners of war.

Lord Bach: All individuals captured or detained by United Kingdom forces in the Gulf are afforded an appropriate status in accordance with the Geneva Convention. Not every individual detained is classified as a prisoner of war.

Iraq: Prisoners Captured by British Forces

Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether any prisoners held in Iraq are considered to be "enemy combatants" rather than prisoners of war.

Lord Bach: The Geneva Conventions of 1949 recognise the term "combatant". Any prisoner captured during an armed conflict whose status is deemed to be that of a "combatant", would be entitled to be treated as a prisoner of war.

Eurofighter Typhoon

Lord Jones: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When the Eurofighter Typhoon is expected to be accepted for introduction into service with the Royal Air Force.

Lord Bach: We are delighted to announce that type acceptance of the Typhoon aircraft took place today. This is a significant milestone that triggers the process of accepting individual aircraft into service with the Royal Air Force and the air forces of our collaborative partners: Germany, Italy and Spain.
	Delivery to the Royal Air Force, which also represents the achievement of the in-service date for this important programme, will signal the beginning of the introduction to service process. Following a very short period in which the safety limitations of initial flying will be confirmed, flying activities will begin with work-up training for BAE Systems instructors. Final confirmatory assessment by Royal Air Force test pilots will follow, after which operational test and evaluation and pilot conversion training will commence.
	The Royal Air Force aircraft will be operated from BAE Systems' facility at Warton for an initial period of some 18 months. This will enable the operators to make best use of the facilities and technical expertise available there before the aircraft transfer to RAF Coningsby, which will be the first operating base to be home to the Typhoon.
	Type acceptance is an important landmark in this complex programme that will lead to a capability to deploy on operations in the second half of this decade. The many people involved in industry and the services, both here and overseas, can be justly proud of what they have so far achieved. The House can be assured of our continued commitment to ensuring that the Royal Air Force is equipped with a world-class weapon system that will enable it to achieve air superiority well into the future. Rebo

Food Supplements

Earl Howe: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What recent meetings Ministers have had with representatives of the Health Food Manufacturers' Association to discuss the Food Supplements Directive; what issues were discussed at any such meetings; and what action they intend to take as a result; and
	Whether it remains their policy that food supplements should not be banned if they are safe and appropriately labelled; and whether they will identify the precise actions they intend to take to ensure that their policy objectives for the regulation of food supplements are met within the European Union regulatory framework; and
	Whether they have plans for officials of the Department of Health or the Food Standards Agency to meet the European Commission and the European Food Safety Authority to discuss any problems for United Kingdom industry of the omission from Annex 1 and Annex 2 of the Food Supplements Directive of many of the nutrients currently permitted for use in the United Kingdom.

Lord Warner: Most recently, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Public Health) at the Department of Health (Ms Hazel Blears) met representatives of the Health Food Manufacturers' Association to discuss the Food Supplements Directive on 9 June 2003. Issues covered in discussion fell under four main headings: nutrients and nutrient sources missing from Annex I and II in the Food Supplements Directive and requirements for safety dossiers; the recently-published report of the Expert Group on Vitamins and Minerals and advice on safe upper levels therein; future setting of maximum permitted levels of vitamins and minerals in food supplements at European Union level; and plans for future action on chromium picolinate.
	The Government are firmly committed to the view that, in the interests of consumer choice, the law should allow food supplements that are safe and properly labelled to be freely marketed.
	The Government, represented by the Food Standards Agency, are pressing the European Food Safety Authority for an urgent, substantive meeting with relevant parties to discuss dossier requirements; the objectives of such a meeting would include outlining the problems faced by the United Kingdom food supplements industry resulting from the omission of nutrients and nutrient sources from the annexes in the Food Supplements Directive, finding out whether dossier requirements could be simplified and discussing to what extent there is crossover with dossiers required for other directives.
	Further, to ensure that the Government's policy objectives for regulation of food supplements in the European Union are met, the Government continue to press their view that the setting of maximum limits for nutrients in food supplements should be based on thorough risk assessment and set at levels which protect public health, but which neither unnecessarily limit consumer choice nor unduly restrict trade. The Government continue to press this view strongly in Brussels at every opportunity.

Food Supplements

Earl Howe: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Which minerals currently permitted for sale in the United Kingdom are omitted from the list of nutrients permitted for use in food supplements under the provisions of Annex 1 of the Food Supplements Directive.

Lord Warner: Food supplements, like other foods, are not required to demonstrate their efficacy before marketing, nor are they subject to prior approval unless they are genetically modified or are "novel". Therefore, the Food Standards Agency does not hold detailed information about food supplements on the United Kingdom market.
	According to information provided by industry, Annex I of the Food Supplements Directive currently omits six minerals (boron, nickel, silicon, cobalt, tin, vanadium) currently used in food supplements on the UK market. John B

Food Supplements

Earl Howe: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Which chemical sources of vitamins and minerals currently permitted for sale in the United Kingdom are omitted from the list of nutrients permitted for use in food supplements under the provisions of Annex 2 of the Food Supplements Directive.

Lord Warner: Food supplements, like other foods, are not required to demonstrate their efficacy before marketing, nor are they subject to prior approval unless they are genetically modified or are "novel". Therefore, the Food Standards Agency does not hold detailed information about food supplements on the United Kingdom market.
	According to information provided by industry, Annex II of the Food Supplements Directive presently omits many chemical sources of vitamins and minerals currently used in food supplements on the UK market. The list of these missing substances is available in the Library.

Food Supplements

Lord Clement-Jones: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What plans they have to consider further the reasons why the Report of the Expert Group on Vitamins and Minerals produced recommendations in relation to several key nutrients which are substantially different from the conclusions of other internationally respected regulatory bodies.

Lord Warner: The Expert Group on Vitamins and Minerals (EVM) consulted widely on a draft of its report in 2002. It carefully considered all responses before finalising its report. Although the Government have no plans to review the report of the EVM at this stage, the evidence base on issues relating to vitamin and mineral supplements will be monitored closely as it develops.

Food Supplements

Lord Clement-Jones: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What specific actions they intend to take to promote to the European Commission, other European Union Member States and the European Food Standards Agency their policy objectives for the setting of maximum permitted levels for nutrients in food supplements; and what those policy objectives are.

Lord Warner: The Government's view is that these maximum limits should be based on consideration of safety rather than supposed nutritional need so as to not unnecessarily limit consumer choice or unduly restrict trade.
	The Food Standards Agency (FSA), which is responsible for negotiations on this issue, takes every opportunity to press this case bilaterally with member states and with other interested parties. In May, the FSA wrote to European Union Member States as well as to the European Commission and the European Food Safety Authority to advise them of the conclusions of the United Kingdom Expert Group on Vitamins and Minerals (EVM) on safe intakes of vitamins and minerals. The EVM's advice will form the basis of the UK's position when substantive discussions at EU level take place in due course. Rebo

Food Supplements

Lord Clement-Jones: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What steps they are taking to ensure that Article 5 of the Food Supplements Directive is interpreted in such a way as to ensure that maximum permitted levels for nutrients in food supplements are set on the basis of safety, not nutritional need or other political considerations.

Lord Warner: Article 5 of the Food Supplements Directive sets out principles for setting maximum permitted levels for vitamins and minerals in food supplements. The Government's view is that these should be based on consideration of safety rather than supposed need or other considerations, so as to neither unnecessarily limit consumer choice nor unduly restrict trade.
	The Food Standards Agency, which is responsible for negotiations on this issue, takes every opportunity to press this case bilaterally with member states. In May, the Food Standards Agency wrote to European Union member states to advise them of the conclusions of the United Kingdom Expert Group on Vitamins and Minerals (EVM) on safe intakes of vitamins and minerals. The EVM's advice will form the basis of the United Kingdom's position when substantive discussions at European Union level take place in due course.

Food Supplements

Lord Clement-Jones: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What consideration was given by the Food Standards Agency to the submission of Consumers for Health Choice on the Draft Food Supplements (England) Regulations; and why the final regulatory impact assessment on these regulations identifies only one submission having been received from a consumer group and that that submission supported the principle of the regulations.

Lord Warner: The Food Standards Agency formally consulted on the draft Food Supplements (England) Regulations 2003 from 23 October 2002 to 15 January 2003. A summary of responses received is on the Food Standards Agency's website with all comments clearly attributed. In amending the draft regulations, the Food Standards Agency carefully considered all responses received, including the comments from Consumers for Health Choice. The one consumer group referred to in the regulatory impact assessment is Foodaware.

Food Supplements

Lord Clement-Jones: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they share the view of Food Standards Agency officials expressed at a meeting with industry representatives and the Minister for Public Health on 9 June that the European Union is now likely to set maximum permitted levels for nutrients in food supplements on the basis of nutritional need, not safety.

Lord Warner: The Government are firmly committed to the view that, in the interests of consumer choice, the law should allow food supplements that are safe and properly labelled to be freely marketed. The European Commission has not yet proposed maximum limits for nutrients in food supplements.
	The view expressed at this meeting was that many European Union member states would prefer a more restrictive approach to setting of maximum limits based on supposed nutritional need, rather than the safety-based approach the United Kingdom is pressing for. The Government recognise that there is a risk that these member states will argue for limits that are lower than levels currently in the UK market place. Rebo

NHS: "University Hospitals"

Lord Walton of Detchant: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What criteria and what facilities and functions are necessary to enable any National Health Service hospital to assume the title of "University Hospital".

Lord Warner: There are no defined criteria, functions or facilities required for any National Health Service hospital to use the title "University Hospital". The term has traditionally been used to denote an affiliation between a hospital and a university where a significant amount of teaching is carried out within the hospital. A hospital would be expected to reach agreement with its associated university before using it. "University Hospitals" remain part of the NHS.

NHS: Healthcare Audit and Inspection

Baroness Masham of Ilton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will list all the government bodies which have a role in:
	(a) inspecting hospitals and care homes and investigating patient standards and complaints; and
	(b) for each body, state their function.

Lord Warner: The only body that undertakes a full inspection and investigation of National Health Service hospitals is the Commission for Health Improvement (CHI), which undertakes a rolling programme of clinical governance reviews.
	The Health Act 1999 requires the CHI to undertake local reviews (known as clinical governance reviews) to examine the quality of care provided by NHS bodies; CHI comment on where and when they think the potential to deliver good care is compromised. The commission may also undertake investigations into the management, provision and quality of healthcare NHS bodies provide.
	The only body that undertakes a full inspection and investigation of care homes is the National Care Standards Commission (NCSC). The Care Standards Act 2000 established the NCSC as the independent regulatory body responsible for registering and inspecting care homes and private and voluntary health care providers.
	The commission carries out regular inspections of services against new national minimum standards set by the Secretary of State for Health and has strong powers of enforcement to ensure that services meet the required standards. It is also there to support service users by investigating complaints and providing information to the public about regulated services.
	Subject to the passage of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill, the Commission for Health Improvement will be replaced by a new Commission for Healthcare, Audit and Inspection (CHAI). CHAI will encompass the current and proposed work of CHI with the independent healthcare work of the NCSC and the national NHS value for money work of the Audit Commission. The functions of CHAI were set out in Delivering the NHS Plan, which also stated that CHAI will provide an independent scrutiny of patient complaints.
	A separate social care inspectorate, the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) comprising the work of the Social Services Inspectorate (SSI) with the social care related functions of the NCSC and the Joint Review team of the SSI/Audit Commission, will also be formed. The CSCI will also have functions in relation to the consideration and investigation of complaints about the social services provided by local social services authorities in England.
	There are other organisations which inspect and investigate different particular aspects of the provision of hospital care, including patient standards and complaints at infrequent intervals but these are not full inspections. These include community health councils, which can inspect hospitals at any time and patient environment action teams, which visit NHS hospitals annually to assess standards of cleanliness.

NHS Commissioning

Lord Ashley of Stoke: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What information they have received from primary care trusts and strategic health authorities regarding the formation of consortia for purchasing specialised services; and
	Whether they will ensure primary care trusts and strategic health authorities inform them about the number and nature of consortia formed for purchasing specialised services, of which they are aware.

Lord Warner: It is up to primary care trusts (PCTs), as member of specialised services commissioning groups, to decide whether they wish to form purchasing consortia for specific specialised services. PCTs overall arrangements for commissioning specialised services are performance managed by strategic health authorities (SHA). It would be up to an individual SHA to decide whether to advise on the formation of a purchasing consortium for a particular specialised service. We do not collect information centrally on purchasing consortia arrangements. We have no plans to do so in the future.

EU Directive on Good Clinical Practice

Baroness Hayman: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What are their current plans and timescale for implementing the European Union Directive on Good Clinical Practice.

Lord Warner: The European Union Directive on Good Clinical Practice (Directive 2001/20/EC) contains within it an implementation date of 1 May 2004. The draft United Kingdom legislation to transpose this directive, the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2003, has been out for a period of public consultation. The responses to this consultation are being evaluated. The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency and the Department of Health will continue to work with the various groups who have raised issues to address their concerns before finalising plans and time-scales for implementation within the UK. Rebo

Clinical Negligence

Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they will publish the Chief Medical Officer's report into clinical negligence.

Lord Warner: We are pleased to announce the publication today of a report for consultation by the Government's Chief Medical Officer, Professor Sir Liam Donaldson, outlining proposals for reform of the National Health Service clinical negligence system.
	The report, entitled Making Amends: a consultation paper setting out proposals for reforming the approach to clinical negligence in the NHS, has been prepared against a background of the rising cost of claims for clinical negligence, which have drawn much media attention. In line with our wider drive to put patients at the heart of the NHS and patient safety at the top of its agenda, Sir Liam proposes that a less adversarial system should be available. Injured patients would no longer have to resort to lengthy and costly court action under the tort law. It would allow the NHS to be pro-active in responding to sub-standard care. There would be clear links to NHS quality initiatives to improve the patient's experience of the NHS as well as an incentive to drive up standards and so reduce injuries in the first place.
	The Chief Medical Officer proposes a NHS redress scheme which would offer redress for injuries, in all senses of that word. The scheme would provide people who were injured with an explanation of what went wrong, the necessary apologies, treatment for that injury and support for patients and their families, as well as some financial compensation in appropriate cases. It is proposed that families of neurologically impaired babies would also be eligible for the NHS redress scheme if the impairment was birth related and fulfilled other eligibility criteria.
	Although a person's right to pursue a formal claim in the court would remain, patients would no longer have to resort to the law as the only way of resolving a dispute with the NHS. Proposed improvements to the legal aid system would mean that use of the NHS scheme would be taken into account if a claimant applied for legal aid after rejecting a fair package of redress under the NHS scheme. At present, over 70 per cent of clinical negligence cases are legally aided, meaning the taxpayer often foots the bill through the legal aid budget if the NHS wins a case or the NHS budget if it loses.
	For too long, we have had a disjointed approach to clinical negligence in the NHS. There are often no clear links between complaints procedures and the systems to deal with clinical negligence claims at a local level. There is little consideration of the wider issues raised by complaints and clinical negligence claims—and settlements—locally and nationally. Finally, there are no reliable systems of ensuring that mistakes made in one organisation are not repeated in another.
	The proposed NHS redress scheme would link to the NHS complaints procedure and the new independent inspection structures being taken forward through the Health and Social Care Reform Bill presently before the House.
	The report emphasises the importance of building an NHS that is better at addressing injuries resulting from poor quality treatment. As well as the NHS redress scheme, it recommends that the NHS should improve rehabilitation services and that in cases of clinical negligence the costs of future care should be considered on an NHS-provided rather than a privately-provided basis. This is a long-term measure and it will take time to establish the necessary specialist NHS capacity. However, the Department of Health will be exploring taking this forward through the long-term care national service framework, as it makes sense that those injured by the NHS should be able to get the care that they need from the NHS.
	Sir Liam's review has been wide ranging and he proposes radical reform of the present lengthy, complicated and over adversarial court-based system. The existing system is slow and often does not provide injured patients with the response to their injuries that they seek. The new system will be more responsive to the needs of patients for redress, and of the NHS for mechanisms that help it learn from mistakes. We believe it is possible to have a system that responds to patients' needs, that supports clinicians to deliver the very best quality care, and that is a driver for the NHS to learn from mistakes to continue to improve the quality of care it delivers.
	There will now be a consultation period until 17 October. Following considerations of the issues raised and of the views of respondents on the specific questions asked, the department expects to set out the next steps to reform the clinical negligence system in the autumn.
	A copy of the report has been placed in the Library.